of the second kind described in § (12); it must also rhyme with the preceding verses. If the syllabic assonance be used in the first verse, the assonant must occur in the fifth syllable. A second form of this metre is given by interchanging the positions of the two couplets above described, while a third consists of a quartett of hepta-syllabic verses, which rhyme in the manner described in § (9). The other metres have their own special laws. What has been said, however, is sufficient to illustrate the application of the stated laws to Welsh versification. Those who should wish to prosecute the study further, must have recourse to more elaborate works. W. WATKINS. THE DATE OF LLANTHONY ABBEY. THERE are two important descriptions of Llanthony Abbey in the Archæologia Cambrensis. One of them will be found in the first volume of the first series of that Journal, by the Rev. George Roberts, at that time of Monmouth. The other appeared ten years later, in the first volume of the third series, by Mr. E. A. Freeman. Mr. Roberts has entered more largely into the history of the Abbey, which he has worked out at considerable length, with so great success, that it may be reckoned among the most valuable of the articles in the whole collection. Mr. Freeman, on the other hand, has given a remarkably lucid and exhaustive architectural history of the remains of the church and other buildings of the monastery, and a no less valuable contribution to the Journal. He has not, however, entered into the general history of the foundation, while, on the other hand, Mr. Roberts has appended some architectural descriptions, the inaccuracy of which is pointed out by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Roberts infers that the church now remaining is the original one, and that the architectural details confirm his view. He says Llanthony was built between 1108 and 1136, but much nearer the former date than the latter, as it was abandoned for Gloucester at the latter period. He puts, therefore, the completion of the structure not later than the year 1115. That such an early date is impossible, Mr. Freeman proves beyond all gainsaying, if the details can speak for themselves. So far from Llanthony being Norman, "it has nothing Norman about it, except that it retains the cushion-capital in its decorative shafts, and the round arch in some of its smaller apertures". The earliest transitional building in England, according to Mr. Freeman, is Malmesbury Abbey, commenced about 1135, and "is thoroughly Norman, except that its pier-arches are obtusely pointed", whereas the transitional work of Llanthony is far in advance of this, the west front being nearly confirmed lancet-work. Mr. Roberts' notion of the present being the original church must then be condemned. He brings down the minute details of its history until 1178, and only adds that the establishment "fell into contempt and ruin in the time of Edward IV". On the other hand, Mr. Freeman shows that it continued to exist until the time of the dissolution, and was only annexed to the Gloucester Llanthony by that king. There is no evidence against the rebuilding, "which architectural science makes perfectly certain". In confirmation of this view Mr. Freeman points out that during the twelfth century there was a single prior and a single set of monks dwelling in one or other of the two abbeys. The deed of Edward IV set forth separate priors, separate monks, and separate properties. How this separation was made is uncertain. The old church would probably be neglected during the establishing of the Gloucester house, and " be rebuilt" when the relations of the two foundations were finally settled, and the Monmouthshire Llanthony became a distinct, if not a subordinate establishment. Mr. Freeman thus puts the rebuilding about the year 1200, the work being gradually done, so that some portions date from the fourteenth century. any confirmation of the correctness of this view If were required, it may be to some extent supplied by the sepulchral slab which attracted the attention of the members during the late visit of the Association, and which is here given from a drawing, made on that occasion by Mr. Worthington Smith. A representation of it is indeed attached to Mr. Roberts' article, but ludicrously incorrect, as will be seen on comparing the two together (see vol. i, p. 245). To point out its inaccuracies by description would be difficult; and nothing but having the two side by side can convey an idea of the difference. Here, at any rate, we have a real thirteenth century slab of somewhat advanced character, and which would, to a certain extent, show that at that period the monks, or some of them, were settled in their Monmouthshire house. Among other stones scattered about is one, the use of which was not explained by anyone during the visit. In the hope that some of our members may tell us what it is, it is here appended. The cut is one-fourth the real size; the section, one-eighth. It does not appear to have been intended for the insertion of small shafts. This is also from a drawing of Mr. Smith. E. L. BARNWELL. CAMBRIAN ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. Examined the above, compared with Vouchers, and found the same correct. ARTHUR GORE } Auditors. D. PHILLIPS LEWIS April 24th, 1877. E. L. BARNWELL, M.A., Treasurer. |